IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA W.A. Nos.3291-3294/2016 & W.A. Nos.2363-2365/2017 (S - PRO) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. V. SHILPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O T.G. VENKATARANGA, ASST. ENGINEER, O/O. AEE(RBC), 7TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, B.W.S & S.B. BANGALORE – 560 009.
2. SRI SADANAND P. KAKHANDAK, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O. PUNDALIKAPPA KAKHANDAK, ASST. ENGINEER, O/O. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER AUDIT, NP & D, B.W.S & S.B.
7TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 009.
3. SMT. LAKSHMI YADAV, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O. KRISHNASWAMY .M ASST. ENGINEER, O/O. AEE(RBC), 7TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, B.W.S & S.B. BANGALORE – 560 009.
4. SRI LOKESH .J AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. JAYANNA .T ASST. ENGINEER, O/O. EE(V & B.M.) 9TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, B.W.S & S.B. BANGALORE – 560 009.
5. SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. S. SHANKARAPPA, ASST. ENGINEER, O/O. AEE(E4) A. NARAYANAPURA SERVICE STATION, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 036.
6. SRI R. RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O. RAJ GOPALA .D ASST. ENGINEER, O/O. THE AEE(SW-4), BYRASANDRA SERVICE STATION, B.W.S & S.B. JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 041.
7. SRI MOHAN S.V.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA S.N. O/O. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CRS WATER WORKS, THIPPAGONDANAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH – 04. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI: S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD, 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009.
2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & SECRETARY, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD, 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009.
3. SRI SUMANTH .N AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. NAGARAJU K.H. ASST. ENGINEER, O/O. AEE-CMC-1-2, B.W.S & S.B. ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 009.
4. SRI NARESH B.K.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. KADEGOWDA, ASST. ENGINEER, B.W.S & S.B. O/O. AEE-K-1-2, T.K. HALLI, B.W.S & S.B. BANGALORE – 560 001.
5. SRI PAVAN .N AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. NAGARAJ .N ASST. ENGINEER, B.W.S & S.B. O/O. AEE-K-1-2, SHIMSHA BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 001.
6. SMT. DIVYA P.S.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/O. P. SANJEEVAIAH, ASST. ENGINEER, B.W.S & S.B., O/O AEE-K-4-2, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 012.
7. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR .S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. SIDDARAMAIAH, ASST. ENGINEER, B.W.S & S.B. O/O. AEE-CMC-1-2, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 009.
8. SMT. SOWMYARANI .M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O S.N. MAHADEV, ASST. ENGINEER, B.W.S & S.B.
O/O. AEE-WWM-H1, 18TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 012.
9. SMT. KIRTHANA .K AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, D/O. K. PRABHAKAR, ASST. ENGINEER, B.W.S & S.B. O/O. EE-PS & BW, 18TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 012.
10. SMT. SOWBHAGYA .S AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D/O. SHIVANNA, ASST. ENGINEER, B.W.S & S.B. O/O. EE-EO, B & VM, 9TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 001.
11. SRI BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. BHIMAYYA, ASST. ENGINEER, B.W.S & S.B. O/O. ASST. ENGINEER(E2), BANGALORE – 1.
12. SRI HUSEN BHASHA S/O. MOULASAB NAIKODE, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, O/O. AEE (WWM) – H1, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, 18TH CROSS, BANGALORE – 03.
13. SRI SHASHIKIRAN S/O. SRINIVASAN K.N.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER OFFICE OF AEE [SW-2] KATRIGUPPE SERVICE STATION BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, BANGALORE – 85.
14. SRI PARASIVAMURTHY S/O. GURUSHANKARA .L AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, O/O. AEE [WWM-VV-1/2] ARKAVATHY BHAVAN, R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE – 39.
15. SRI HARSHA .A S/O. ANANTHAMURTHY B.S. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, O/O. AEE [WWM] H-2 OUTER RING ROAD, OPP: NAGAWARA LAKE, HEBBAL, BANGALORE – 24.
16. SRI LADLESAB NALATWAD S/O. MOHAMMED YUSUF NALATAWAD, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, O/O. AEE [CMC-3]-2, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, B.W.S & S.B, BANGALORE – 03.
17. SRI K. NAGARAJA S/O. VENKATESH .K AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, O/O AEE [S1] BANAGIRI SUB DIVISION, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE – 41.
18. SRI SHAIK MOHAMMED S/O. ASHRAF JAHAN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, O/O. AEE [ELE] SUB-DIVISION, JAYANAGAR BDA COMPLEX, JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK, B.W.S & S.B., BANGALORE – 41.
19. SRI NAYIMULLA SHARIF S/O. AMANULLA SHARIF, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, O/O. AEE [CAUVERY HEAD WORKS] B.W.S & S.B., HAROHALLI, BANGALORE – 06.
20. SRI MANJUNAG J.C. S/O. CHIKKABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER O/O. AEE [ELE]-1, MALLESHWARAM, 18TH CROSS, B.W.S & S.B., BANGALORE – 03. ... RESPONDENTS ***** THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 19518/2014, 19519/2014, 19520/2014, 19521/2014, 19524/2014, 19528/2014 & 19529/2014 DATED 4/9/2014.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T These writ appeals are directed against order dated 04/09/2014, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.19518-19533/2014. There is a delay of 674 days in filing these appeals.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the impugned order and contended that appellants have a good case on merits. However, he submitted that there is a delay of 674 days in filing these appeals and having regard to the merits in these appeals, delay may be condoned. He drew our attention to the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay and sought to submit that the official respondents have not filed any statement of objections in the writ petitions and that the appellants herein were not aware of the true position vis-à-vis their seniority in the final seniority list, which was assailed in the said writ petitions. In substance, the grievance of the appellants is that the seniority assigned to respondent Nos.3 to 11 is incorrect as they have not joined duty in time.
3. However, as far as the delay of 674 days in filing the appeals is concerned, explanation is offered in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the affidavit. On perusal of the same, we find that the said explanation is not sufficient in law so as to condone the delay of 674 days in filing the appeals. In the circumstances, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeals are also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE S*